From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E8F282 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:59:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k15so90885986qtg.3 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:59:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oUJT+sv32+q5npBNkfWJjDMaNbQuy11as31fBTkPWEY=; b=Hi6Yz8dYCGrk9kkyfnPqZ9phQzpiusSuxhhVwQRndQRfUwRMTPxW59FrSOWGyykzF1 yGC6/lRpmtTl+ELz1L1UyC3Xql1qwrRfrJafymdPgUbEOhsLDokOZinNmWQ+nIY9+BFi sg/zar7RnZjZHoUh8YuwCIkBz5jV3DVhDB56qVeHEWQjaO2iXu4M9LIbhOAPiVOBKfXO rZnV8J3RDAzxn7pop4J3RULgAQ0wLinaZ9fhhdQUKJIU83wzo+lv/Ue+ViRybRDDUkHU J60h9my8vRf6qB++5NhJxGvBOjQsY9vvKFSMHo/4McMIotZjBQswOCrq/cjZK3VpUsGi ESWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oUJT+sv32+q5npBNkfWJjDMaNbQuy11as31fBTkPWEY=; b=axzg4C11w8TSiJVR0dM0+8qHXwreZ8BH3KdlFqHpT1YoL35DtgvL2v1hnKE5rShXiQ KEOLHRM7t7uUF0GBYK49hjVOtEgSMcam0kqS6A83pUy7HQX1f/n+Fp/Yw+H9le/3r1+0 m9YRAKOC61W/NcHCFtPkyPs+731nJCo4JMcPd5iy9d2N7U1nXvefm8pW/MAVGnnlfAAQ bp8vPqSFeFw6fswDhkaM+wyO/C/M/rErYMPfyJETdQ7WgwdFe/CBtWK0ujQCXwK+L+SE 77GvOl3dJsxInggCMhksSFxsxU+JtLTZIbQD9g89HDbziN6WfXvSTImSuwJIxpAsyNyK e7Ew== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL1IrgP0WHmAYYkxucHT0il7V38ba6xpBG3XNjRJik7aTeY9qW/V5h0B2YHs8CwTvPLyrC3ZoqzQKpYiA== X-Received: by 10.200.1.143 with SMTP id x15mr29888164qtf.61.1482854359314; Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:59:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <88A92D351643BA4CB23E30315517062662F595DF@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: edgar helmut Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:59:08 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Hu, Xuekun" Cc: "Wiles, Keith" , "users@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:59:20 -0000 short explanation for how to read the comparison: first row is packet length throughput is half duplex, means: second row is vm throughput of port 1 to 2 (port 2 to 1 has approximately same throughput) in gbps. third row is host throughput of port 1 to 2 (port 2 to 1 has approximately same throughput) in gbps. i.e. on 1500 bytes packet size testpmd delivers ~9.82 gbps from port 1 to 2 and another ~9.82 gbps from port 2 to 1, while at the vm it only delivers ~3.9 gbps for each direction. On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM edgar helmut wrote: > Thanks. That's the document i am following. > For the best i can only ask that the hugepages won't be shared with > others, but it never reserve it from the pre allocated hugepages of the > host. > Did you have a chance to use hugepages for a guest > > as for the interfaces, i am using the virtio/vhost which creates the > macvtap: > > > > > >
function=3D'0x0'/> > > > The following is a performance comparison host vs. vm using testpmd. as > you can see vm performance is poor. > > (sudo x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc/app/testpmd -c 0x1f -n 3 -m 1024 -- > --coremask=3D0x1e --portmask=3D3 -i) > > > 64 128 256 500 800 1000 1500 > vm 0.23 0.42 0.75 1.3 2.3 2.7 3.9 > host 3.6 6.35 8.3 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.82 > > I have to improve it dramatically. > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:52 AM Hu, Xuekun wrote: > > Searching =E2=80=9Chugepages=E2=80=9D in https://libvirt.org/formatdomain= .html > > > > If you are looking for to measure in and out packets through host, maybe > you can look at vhost/virtio interface also. > > > > After your testing, if you can report the performace out with macvtap, > that also helps us. J > > > > > > *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2016 11:53 PM > > > *To:* Hu, Xuekun > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith ; users@dpdk.org > *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine > > > > any idea how to reserve hugepages for a guest (and not > transparent/anonymous hugepages) ? > > i am using libvirt and any backing method I am trying results with > anonymous hugepage. > > disabling the transparent hugepages resulted without any hugepages. > > Thanks > > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 10:06 AM edgar helmut > wrote: > > I am looking for a mean to measure in and out packets to and from the vm > (without asking the vm itself). While pure passthrough doesn't expose an > interface to query for in/out pkts the macvtap exposes such an interface. > > As for the anonymous hugepages I was looking for a more flexible method > and I assumed there is no much difference. > > I will make the test with reserved hugepages. > > However is there any knowledge about macvtap performance issues when > delivering 5-6 gbps? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On 24 Dec 2016 9:06 AM, "Hu, Xuekun" wrote: > > Now your setup has a new thing, =E2=80=9Cmacvtap=E2=80=9D. I don=E2=80=99= t know what=E2=80=99s the > performance of using macvtap. I only know it has much worse perf than the > =E2=80=9Creal=E2=80=9D pci pass-through. > > > > I also don=E2=80=99t know why you select such config for your setup, anon= ymous > huge pages and macvtap. Any specific purpose? > > > > I think you should get a baseline first, then to get how much perf droppe= d > if using anonymous hugepages or macvtap=E3=80=82 > > 1. Baseline: real hugepage + real pci pass-through > > 2. Anon hugepages vs hugepages > > 3. Real pci pass-through vs. macvtap > > > > *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2016 3:23 AM > *To:* Hu, Xuekun > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith ; users@dpdk.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine > > > > Hello, > > I changed the setup but still performance are poor :( and I need your hel= p > to understand the root cause. > > the setup is (sorry for long description): > > (test equipment is pktgen using dpdk installed on a second physical > machine coonected with 82599 NICs) > > host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @ 2.40GHz with single socket , > ubuntu 16.04, with 4 hugepages of 1G each. > > hypervizor (kvm): QEMU emulator version 2.5.0 > > guest: same cpu as host, created with 3 vcpus, using ubuntu 16.04 > > dpdk: tried 2.2, 16.04, 16.07, 16.11 - using testpmd and 512 pages of 2M > each. > > guest total memory is 2G and all of it is backed by the host with > transparent hugepages (I can see the AnonHugePages consumed at guest > creation). This memory includes the 512 hugepages for the testpmd > application. > > I pinned and isolated the guest's vcpus (using kernel option isolcapu), > and could see clearly that the isolation functions well. > > > > 2 x 82599 NICs connected as passthrough using macvtap interfaces to the > guest, so the guest receives and forwards packets from one interface to t= he > second and vice versa. > > at the guest I bind its interfaces using igb_uio. > > the testpmd at guest starts dropping packets at about ~800mbps between > both ports bi-directional using two vcpus for forwarding (one for the > application management and two for forwarding). > > at 1.2 gbps it drops a lot of packets. > > the same testpmd configuration on the host (between both 82599 NICs) > forwards about 5-6gbps on both ports bi-directional. > > I assumed that forwarding ~5-6 gbps between two ports should be trivial, > so it will be great if someone can share its configuration for a tested > setup. > > Any further idea will be highly appreciated. > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM edgar helmut > wrote: > > That's what I afraid. > > In fact i need the host to back the entire guest's memory with hugepages. > > I will find the way to do that and make the testing again. > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2016 3:14 AM, "Hu, Xuekun" wrote: > > You said VM=E2=80=99s memory was 6G, while transparent hugepages was only= used ~4G > (4360192KB). So some were mapped to 4K pages. > > > > BTW, the memory used by transparent hugepage is not the hugepage you > reserved in kernel boot option. > > > > *From:* edgar helmut [mailto:helmut.edgar100@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2016 1:24 AM > *To:* Hu, Xuekun > *Cc:* Wiles, Keith; users@dpdk.org > *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine > > > > in fact the vm was created with 6G RAM, its kernel boot args are defined > with 4 hugepages of 1G each, though when starting the vm i noted that > anonhugepages increased. > > The relevant qemu process id is 6074, and the following sums the amount o= f > allocated AnonHugePages: > sudo grep -e AnonHugePages /proc/6074/smaps | awk '{ if($2>0) print $2} > '|awk '{s+=3D$1} END {print s}' > > which results with 4360192 > > so not all the memory is backed with transparent hugepages though it is > more than the amount of hugepages the guest supposed to boot with. > > How can I be sure that the required 4G hugepages are really allocated?, > and not, for example, only 2G out of the 4G are allocated (and the rest 2 > are mapping of the default 4K)? > > > > thanks > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Hu, Xuekun wrote: > > Are you sure the anonhugepages size was equal to the total VM's memory > size? > Sometimes, transparent huge page mechanism doesn't grantee the app is usi= ng > the real huge pages. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: users [mailto:users-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of edgar helmut > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 9:32 PM > To: Wiles, Keith > Cc: users@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Dpdk poor performance on virtual machine > > I have one single socket which is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v4 @ > 2.40GHz. > > I just made two more steps: > 1. setting iommu=3Dpt for better usage of the igb_uio > 2. using taskset and isolcpu so now it looks like the relevant dpdk cores > use dedicated cores. > > It improved the performance though I still see significant difference > between the vm and the host which I can't fully explain. > > any further idea? > > Regards, > Edgar > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Wiles, Keith > wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 1:20 AM, edgar helmut > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > Some help is needed to understand performance issue on virtual machin= e. > > > > > > Running testpmd over the host functions well (testpmd forwards 10g > > between > > > two 82599 ports). > > > However same application running on a virtual machine over same host > > > results with huge degradation in performance. > > > The testpmd then is not even able to read 100mbps from nic without > drops, > > > and from a profile i made it looks like a dpdk application runs more > than > > > 10 times slower than over host=E2=80=A6 > > > > Not sure I understand the overall setup, but did you make sure the > NIC/PCI > > bus is on the same socket as the VM. If you have multiple sockets on yo= ur > > platform. If you have to access the NIC across the QPI it could explain > > some of the performance drop. Not sure that much drop is this problem. > > > > > > > > Setup is ubuntu 16.04 for host and ubuntu 14.04 for guest. > > > Qemu is 2.3.0 (though I tried with a newer as well). > > > NICs are connected to guest using pci passthrough, and guest's cpu is > set > > > as passthrough (same as host). > > > On guest start the host allocates transparent hugepages (AnonHugePage= s) > > so > > > i assume the guest memory is backed with real hugepages on the host. > > > I tried binding with igb_uio and with uio_pci_generic but both result= s > > with > > > same performance. > > > > > > Due to the performance difference i guess i miss something. > > > > > > Please advise what may i miss here? > > > Is this a native penalty of qemu?? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Edgar > > > > Regards, > > Keith > > > > > > > > > >